Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby slippers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was There's SNOW place like home, there's SNOW place like home! Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby slippers

The Ruby Slippers from the Wizard of Oz seriously do NOT need their own page or have any notability outside of the film. Almost all WP:Original Research and trivia type info. Any citable info might be incorporated into the film article, but otherwise, cut along with The Ruby Slippers (which currently redirects to Ruby Slippers). Collectonian (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

Aren't these the most famous movie prop of all time, and more visited at the Smithsonian than the Declaration of Independence? They might also be the most famous shoes in the world. I suggested a title change to the Silver Slippers which are in the public domain and the original version by L. Frank Baum. A lot of other Fantastic Artifacts that onlt appear in a single work have pages. Have you seen all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and Video Game stuff? The Death Star has it's own page. You're just being Ozphobic! --Pyrzqxgl (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supposedly, these are the "holy grail" of movie prop collectors. They might auction for over a million bucks these days. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit the article needs more inline sources, these are very widely known items, and not just in the film's immediate sphere. Don't see much trivia there. SkierRMH (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ruby slippers are such a well-known item in an incredibly well-known movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article is already so long that a merge there would be impractical. Joyous! | Talk 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ruby slippers are in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian, and are usually on display there. That means they are notable. Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. The ruby slippers have been the subject of a short story written by Salman Rushdie, and - as Anteater and Kingturtle say - they are highly valued collector's items, if not the pinnacle. --WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. These are incredibly iconic; I can't think of more iconic bits of Americana, except maybe Lincoln's hat or things like the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. I am baffled and incredulous at this nomination. These are notable by even the most stringent interpretations of our policies and guidelines, and I succumb to the temptation to wrote this off as a misguided or even bad-faith nomination - someone just close this already as a snowball. --Gwern (contribs) 16:36 17 November 2007 (GMT)
Keep. Massively well-known, verifiable in spades, and a major impact on American culture, as above. I can't think of any reason that deletion would be appropriate here -- remember (and this is important): articles can sometimes be poorly written, full of trivia, and go off on weird tangents. If they are (and I have no opinion on this one), then they should be fixed. Deletion is not a remedy for poor writing -- deletion is a remedy for a subject that doesn't deserve an article. This one clearly does. --TheOther Bob 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.